Yeah, please keep this on track I think it's just gorgeous and must be every steampunk lovers dream!! I once found a 1960's era bicycle in my neighbors garage (chrome fenders, sissy bar etc.) who I was helping clean out. She was in her eighties and remembered riding it back in the day and when I expressed interest in it she graciously gave it to me and I had every intention of restoring it, but as with some plans it never came about, but I was able to gift it to a friend who did have the time and resources to do the work and when he rode it by my house one day a month later fully restored it was just the coolest thing.

The telescope frame is iron and more than 120 years old. Its all that is remaining. The lens and mirrors were removed and may be in Edinburgh University now. Due to the weather in Braidwood I guess they were always removeable, leaving just the frame in the field. Yes, it qualifies as an ancient monument now and should be left in situ.As far as we know there are no photographs in circulation of the working telescope though there are pics of Hunter-Selkirk in his top hat.

The Fecker would be perfect.
If I'd thought about it at the time I probably would have bought it.
Much to the horror of my wife though, her hobby is plants, roses in particular and she wouldn't like a big old telescope yard art, working or not.

Attached Files

I never did a thread only posts in the ads.I went back through my mail though and here it is: https://picasaweb.go...torationProjectNorm is his name 509-987-3823I asked my wife just now and she said "it ain't gunna happen" usually when she talks primitive like that she means it. The yard is very special to her.

The telescope frame is iron and more than 120 years old. Its all that is remaining. The lens and mirrors were removed and may be in Edinburgh University now. Due to the weather in Braidwood I guess they were always removeable, leaving just the frame in the field. Yes, it qualifies as an ancient monument now and should be left in situ.
As far as we know there are no photographs in circulation of the working telescope though there are pics of Hunter-Selkirk in his top hat.

<soapbox>Just because someone is from an "Historical Society" doesn't mean they're automatically right about things like this, and I find this attitude utterly appalling. Just let it rust away in a field? Where's the value (historical or otherwise) in that?

Document it so its context can be understood and it can be returned if desired, but protect what's left of the instrument from the elements at the very least (which would mean changing the site at least some if it stays there). Is that OK? Why? If not, why not? Better (imo), return it to working condition using as many original parts as possible and replicas when necessary AND USE IT, even if it's not in the original site.

If some significant discovery or other event occurred at that specific site with that instrument, you could argue that the location with the telescope there is a shrine and the telescope should stay there. Otherwise, preserve the instrument and use it if at all possible; if at a different location, so be it. It sounds like it was a nice old telescope that was used for personal pleasure and then neglected for decades. That's an ancient monument? Really? It was built to be used, and resuming that is a far more fitting legacy.</soapbox>

I agree with SkipW's sentiments in principle, yet I wonder whether this "ancient monuments" business is British legal jargon. Could it be that, after surviving 100 years, the scope has become as protected as another Stonehenge? Who reading this knows?

Well said SkipW. I wonder how much of this resistance is simply due to its size/mass. If it were Hunter-Selkirk's 60mm refractor laying out there, then surely someone would have at least put it in a museum by now

I agree with SkipW's sentiments in principle, yet I wonder whether this "ancient monuments" business is British legal jargon. Could it be that, after surviving 100 years, the scope has become as protected as another Stonehenge? Who reading this knows?

In one way, I agree with Skip as well. But, in the U.K., 100 years is not old, at all.

It would be nice to see this thing restored to its original grandeur, but the optics are probably missing and there's no shelter for it and, who's going to pay for all that? Restorations can get very expensive in no time at all and then there's the question of providing some kind of shelter for it. It also seems that whomever owns it has no interest in saving it nor selling it and relocating it. Most likely, this thing is going to stay where it's at and slowly deteriorate. At least it doesn't seem to have been vandalized...

as soon as the local crooks find out its there it will be pinched and cut up for scrap, aftr all they pinch the war memorials and cut them up for scrap so an old telescope would mean nothing to them, after all to a non astronomer it almost looks like another dumped bit of farm equipment

The Parliament of the United Kingdom passed Ancient Monument Protection Acts in 1882, 1900, 1910, and 1979. While the Acts of 1882 and 1900 are more specifically aimed at protecting archaeological sites and particularly pre-historic archaeological sites, the Act of 1910 expands the content of coverage to historical artifacts, structures, etc. deemed to be significant.

This was again further expanded in the Act of 1979 to include "any other monument which in the opinion of the Secretary of State is of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching to it".

The Act goes on to further define "monument" as:
"any building, structure or work above or below the surface of the land, any cave or excavation; any site comprising the remains of any such building, structure or work or any cave or excavation; and any site comprising or comprising the remains of any vehicle, vessel or aircraft or other movable structure or part thereof." (Section 61 (7))

This would pretty well covers it I would think. Often a couple of general tests that are applied to historical preservation and cultural resource management in most European countries would be:

(1) Is the monument significant to or has it survived in the collective generational memory of the local or national culture?
and
(2) Has a place name been affixed to it?

These last two points were what I used in my surmise that it should be protected in place in my original post.

Since it is conjoined to the placename "Telescope Hill" and is no doubt in and of itself the reason for that name, since it is still in its original location (as confirmed by the reply from the local historical society), since it has stood there for more than 100 years (in the minds of several generations and through two world wars), and since it was constructed by a well known local naturalist of the Victorian period, I think it would be viewed as a protected piece.

As far as "pinching it and cutting it up for scrap" such would be considered a criminal offense prosecutable to the full extent of the law. I'm sure the locals including the local "crooks" are well aware of its existence and of the extent of the law. I think people of Great Britain have a little more respect for things and lack the frontier mentality that we see in a lot of places. That is not a political comment, merely an observation. And I could certainly be wrong.

Thanks for posting that. I agree that it should probably remain where it is, though it would certainly be nice to see it restored and put back to use, or at least sheltered to arrest its further decay.

I live in the largest "historic overlay zone" in Los Angeles. The rules of what home owners can do with/to their property aren't as stringent as a "historic district" because we have structures spanning the past 150 years, including modern ones lacking historic significance. Our own house is an LA City Monument and is on the National Register of HIstoric Places.

There used to be a grand Victorian hotel about a mile from here, and adjacent to the passenger rail line of the time. The tracks are long gone because the current light rail uses the old freight right of way, which differs slightly from the old passenger route. Sadly, the hotel, the Garvanza Villa Hotel, burned down sometime after 1910. Up until a few years ago, the only thing that remained was an arroyo-stone bench in the corner of the property facing the railroad tracks. It had been given monument status during the 70s, because the owner of the property was threatening to demolish it. His complaint was that it was being tagged and vagrants were sleeping on it. Our old house group offered to move it, if we could find a new site for it. But, a few years ago when nobody was watching, the owner broke it up with a sledge hammer and threw it away.

That would be my only remaining concern for the fate of this telescope. Of course, any catastrophic event could result in the destruction and loss of a historic monument. I can still hope that the telescope will be protected, maybe even restored and reused. Wouldn't it be great if the original optics could be found and put back with the scope, or vice-versa?

I can understand leaving certain important historic artifacts alone out of respect for people and events of the past - like the Titanic or Truk Lagoon. But even Truk Lagoon makes me cry sometimes, thinking of vintage planes that could be recovered and restored, and of which there are no surviving flyable examples anywhere in the world today.

I totally agree with you on erecting a structure, even a pergola in Victorian style over it and having some information about it on a plaque or something, so that it would last longer, being protected from the elements. I am a big one for historic preservation. I was born in San Bernardino and grew up in Rialto but moved away many years ago, still in time to see them destroy many/most historic structures in the two towns for the sake of redevelopment (read graft and payoffs to the "developers". I saw them tear out the PE line, the historic city hall and fire station down town, burn the Santa Fe station, etc in Rialto and completely destroy downtown San Bernardino with the exception on one department store and one historic theater. The beautiful California Hotel was razed as was St. Bernardine's High School. They did manage to keep the California Theater. Rialto still has most of its old downtown and the PE station. Gone are the packing houses, orange groves, and Victorian grove houses that gave it its charm back when it was a little "Mayberry." When I was a kid we had 10,000 people in Rialto, when I left it was up to 36,000 and now its over 100,000.
It was merely symptomatic of what went on all over southern California. Like your historic old bench, we had several old structures that were deemed of historical interest and were to be kept preserved, instead, they mysteriously burned down :: and then the property was re-developed.

I loved it several years ago when they put Angel's Flight incline back in L.A. only to close it a few months later. Bunker Hill was full of huge, beautiful old Victorian houses in downtown L.A. and all were torn down (I think for the ARCO Plaza).

This is one reason I am big on historic preservation other than spending most of my career as a geologist consulting for archaeologists. If we don't preserve it, its gone forever.

Thanks for the ramble, I enjoyed reading it. It reminded me of Cali in "the good old days" (the 50s and 60s).

Hi sorry to shatter your illusions of the UK, I am from the UK and I am scottish as well, trust me if it isn't tied down it can go , they actualy prize the metal war memorial plaques with all the names of the fallen off and cut them up for scrap !

Thanks for letting us know Gordon. What a shame. It's like that here with copper. People have come home to find their downspouts stripped and their AC coils pillaged. Well I stand corrected. The grass always looks greener on the other side you know. Alas... sigh